Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the provenance of the ranges, the non-quote disclaimer, and the important edge case that an empty list is returned when no pricing is published instead of an estimate. That empty-result behavior is a genuine operational detail beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core scope is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the retainer/rate-card detail and the disclaimer. Three sentences is slightly more than strictly needed, but each carries information the agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description supplies exactly what is missing: what is returned, the currency, the reliability caveat, and the empty-list behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description does not waste space restating an empty schema, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and scope: what the company builds and supports plus typical project costs in AUD, including the support retainer and hourly rate card. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling estimate_project by insisting the figures are delivered-work ranges, 'not quotes,' so an agent can tell these two apart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for retrieving published pricing and that it should not be treated as a quote-generating tool. It never explicitly says when to call this versus estimate_project, nor names that sibling, so the routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.